Brooklyn Bridge Park Prez: Send in Your Comment on Pier 6 Development Now
Brownstoner received this email today from Brooklyn Bridge Park President Regina Myer. She reminds us the public comment period on the modification to the General Project Plan will close at the end of the month, and repeats the park’s arguments in favor of development on Pier 6. “To the Brooklyn Bridge Park Community: The Pier…
Brownstoner received this email today from Brooklyn Bridge Park President Regina Myer. She reminds us the public comment period on the modification to the General Project Plan will close at the end of the month, and repeats the park’s arguments in favor of development on Pier 6.
“To the Brooklyn Bridge Park Community:
The Pier 6 development, approved in the Park’s General Project Plan 10 years ago, is essential to keeping Brooklyn Bridge Park beautiful and maintaining the high standards of care that make it such a special space.
There is currently an opportunity to make improvements to the Pier 6 development by including permanently affordable, middle-class housing units, a public pre-k facility, community space and additional parkland – all while actually reducing the size of the development. To facilitate this, the Park has requested that the GPP be modified to address these additional community benefits.
We are proud that with this final development site Brooklyn Bridge Park is in a position to not only secure the Park’s future, but also help address the City’s acute shortage of affordable homes for working families and ensure that a broader range of New Yorkers are the Park’s immediate neighbors.
Empire State Development and its subsidiary Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corp., the government entities responsible for deciding whether to approve changes to the GPP, are soliciting public comment on the proposed modification.
I encourage you to review the information below and e-mail your comments directly to ESD at brooklynbridgepark@esd.ny.gov by 5pm on August 31.
Thank you for your attention to this matter at such a crucial time for Brooklyn Bridge Park.
Sincerely,
Regina Myer
The Pier 6 development sites are not now – and never were – parkland, and the project would not take away park space. The current Park site was formerly an industrial wasteland, and the government agreed to build a park there only if some land was set aside to generate revenue to its future upkeep.The Pier 6 development site is located at the edge of the Park near the Pier 7 distribution facility and abuts the BQE, Furman Street and Atlantic Avenue. It occupies a mere 0.5% of the overall project footprint, and the revenue generated from that piece of land will allow the Park to thrive.
The Pier 6 development is essential to Brooklyn Bridge Park’s longterm financial stability. Without additional revenue from the Pier 6 site, BBP’s financial projections show that it will run out of money in about 10 years. BBP projects that revenues from Pier 6 will provide approximately 10% of annual recurring revenue and more than 60% of projected one-time payments needed for maritime infrastructure. These projections have been shared widely and can be found on the Park’s website. It’s very simple: taking care of a park built on piers is expensive and predicting the future revenue needed to support it is risky.
The Park requires funding for extensive marine repairs – right now. The Park is built on 13,000 wooden piles that are in various stages of deterioration and in need of repair. The Pier 6 development will provide essential funding for proactive marine infrastructure repairs. Without these repairs, a $400 million taxpayer investment will fall into the East River.
Brooklyn Bridge Park has successfully minimized development. The Park and adjacent development sites have been specifically designed to maximize the area used as park space and minimize development footprints. The Park has reduced development to 10% of the overall project footprint, down from the initially contemplated 20%. And it has reduced the number of approved housing units from 1,240 to 924, including Pier 6.
There is no evidence that the Pier 6 development would cause significant adverse environmental impact on the surrounding community – and no evidence that further study would prove otherwise. A Technical Memorandum prepared in November 2014 in accordance with State law assessed potential environmental impacts of the Pier 6 development. This report, which incorporated updated data, determined that the Pier 6 development would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts that were not previously identified and studied, including on school overcrowding. Therefore, in accordance with State law, no supplemental environmental impact statement is required.
Post-Superstorm Sandy resiliency measures are a requirement of the Pier 6 development. In a post-Sandy world, all of the Park’s developments incorporate resiliency measures in order to withstand extreme weather, and all adhere to the amended New York City building codes and updated FEMA flood maps.
The proposed development directly responds to community concerns. The Park’s recommended proposal reduces the height of each building by three stories from what the original request for proposals allowed, and reduces the number of residential units by 20%. The development would provide approximately 117 units of affordable housing, a 75- seat pre-K facility, a 1,500-square-foot community facility, additional parkland and public restrooms. The development would also generate approximately 500 union construction jobs.”
Pier 6 Coverage [Brownstoner]
Rendering by ODA
You’re right. It’s not a NIMBY issue. This isn’t your “backyard”. This park was built for the benefit of the entire city on abandoned piers and unused derelict waterfront land that isn’t even part of Brooklyn Heights. The community for this park is the City of New York and you’d be hard pressed to find anyone outside of your tiny circle of spoiled Heights residents with the gall to actually complain about a park. You do realize you’re talking about a park, right? A gorgeous creation with incredible views filled with amenities that are being used by countless people from all over the city every day – completely for free. Just one quick walk through the park makes all of these complaints seem all the more absurd. But perhaps the worst thing about your post is how misinformed you sound. It’s like you’re not even aware of what is currently being debated and what is actually at stake in the process right now.
When your elementary kids no longer have access to art, library, music or anything but the very basics, is that whining? If they’re stuffed into temporary trailers outside the school or there’s a drape that separates a classroom into two classrooms, is that being a spoiled brat?
The Pre-K is a sham, as is the affordable housing so that the park can appear to be compromising. The honest truth is that we need elementary school seats a lot more than we need pre-k seats. The pre-k seats, in a perverse way, will actually make the problem worse by drawing more families into the building who will then need elementary seats in 1-2 years. The affordable housing is also just window dressing.
If they want to build these buildings, let them prove they need the money, or if they really want to be good citizens then put in an elementary school and truly affordable housing in 1 building and revert the other space to more park.
This not a NIMBY issue. This is not an affordable housing issue. This is a basic city planning issue. This development project along with the myriad others in the area is taking place with absolute zero regard to the community. In fact, the Park staff has repeatedly outright ignored the community. The park’s own Community Advisory Council has been pleading for years to get more visibility into the park’s finances. The park just says “trust us”. Then they hired their own economist who says “trust them”. These are the same guys who can’t even give us the straight story on the pedestrian bridge that’s been closed for over a year.
The local school is at 140% capacity and when the project is done, all 8 schools in the area will be at 140% capacity. If having an entire school sub-district at that level of over-crowding is not an issue, then what is? Why can’t the park even tell us why they won’t give us more details on their finances? Why can’t they wait 1 or 2 years until we build a school before they exacerbate the situation?
Yeah. It’s not like anyone is trying to change this project to include local pre-k seats or anything, you know.
I’m glad the park has spelled out clearly what is actually at stake here during this public review process as many in opposition to the Pier 6 development seem to be misinformed. And frankly I’ve been baffled that there is actually opposition to this development. I suppose there is always opposition to everything but opponents seem to have successfully mislabeled this a fight between big developers and the little guy. Completely absurd. This is, quite simply, a fight between those who support the park and affordable housing and those who do not. (And of course those who do not want people who live in affordable housing living next to them)
As supporters of the park have repeatedly stated, this development is NOT taking land that was dedicated to parkland. It is using a tiny piece of land to build housing that allows the park to exist and creates more affordable housing for the city – something that is of course badly needed citywide and especially in the Brooklyn Heights area. I imagine the line “ensure that a broader range of New Yorkers are the Park’s immediate neighbors” is what really has people opposing this plan because the other objections that have been raised don’t make any sense.